CREATE ACCOUNT

FORGOT YOUR DETAILS?

PakistanCriminalRecords.com is a free research resource being provided free of charge by managed by Background Check Pvt Ltd, one of the Asia's largest screening firms, to public for the awareness about the serious and organized crime in Pakistan.

Rawalpindi: Court reserves judgment in ephedrine case

Rawalpindi: Court reserves judgment in ephedrine case

RAWALPINDI: LahoreHighCourt (LHC) Rawalpindi bench on Wednesday reserved judgment on the bail plea of two identical bail petitions of federal textile minister MakhdoomShahabuddin and MNAAliMusaGillani, the son of former primeministerSyedYousafRazaGillani, allegedly involved in ephedrinecase. LHC division bench comprising JusticeKhawajaImtiazAhmed and Justice IbadurRehmanLodhi, after hearing the arguments of the counsels of MakhdoomShahab, Musa Gillani and AntiNarcoticsForce (ANF), reserved the judgment on the bail petitions which would be announced later.

In his concluding arguments, AbdulRasheedSheikh, counsel of the accused said that his clients were neither nominated in the FIRregistered by the ANF authorities on October 10, 2011 nor had their names been included in the initial challans submitted in the court by ANF in connection with ephedrinecase. According to him, ANF under certain pressures issued arrestwarrants for MakhdoomShahab, who was frontrunner for the vacant slot of the primeminister on July21, at the time. He contended that the only evidence against his client was the statements of two approvers, DrRasheedJuma former director general health and RizwanAhmedKhan the partner of Danas pharmaceutical company, which were recorded by the ANF in violation of certain procedures.

The approvers’ statements were not linked with MakhdoomShahab with the said allocation as according to these statements both the approvers accusedAnjumShah of getting approvals for the allocation of 2,500 kgephedrine to Danas pharmaceutical company.

He argued that ephedrine was not a narcotic but a controlled chemical which is used in the manufacturing of medicine.

Dr Khalid Ranjha, counsel of MusaGillani told the court that his client was not enjoying any official authority and could not be implicated in the allocation of controlled chemical case because he was not involved in the process of allocation.

MusaGillani was a student and was studying at England when the allocation of the chemical was made, he added.

According to him, soon after the success of MusaGillani in the by election of NA-148, ANF expedited a campaign against him and included his name in the challan and also issued his arrestwarrants.

ShahidMehmoodAbbasi, ANF prosecutor general on the other hand told the court that both the accused were involved in the illegal allocation of 9,000 kg ephedrine to the two pharmaceutical companies, Berlex and Danas.

He said the allocation of 6,500 kgephedrine to the Berlex pharmaceutical company has been made within a week of its registration with the ministry of health, where there were at least 200 other well known pharmaceutical companies, already waiting for their turn for the allocation of the ephedrine.

Referring to the approvers’ statements, advocate Abbasi said that the one approver in his statement had identified the role of MakhdoomShahab, MusaGillani in the alleged illegal allocation of the ephedrine.

Meanwhile, the same court dismissed the petition of MusaGillani seeking the court’s direction to declare illegal the statements of two approvers — DrRasheedJuma and RizwanAhmedKhan.

The counsel of MusaGillani told the court that the trial court did not follow the prescribed procedure in recording the approvers’ statements.

He said under the high court rules the approver can only record his statements, after the confirmation of his bail or being in confinement but in this case, both the approvers withdrew their pre-arrest bail petitions after getting assurance from the ANF and right now none of them is under ANFcustody.

According to him, the status of approvers is not clear as they were not in any sort of ANF supervision, therefore, their statements were illegal and cannot be used as evidence against his client.